EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?

[Loswr]

In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

I agree there's a gap, but it's been there long enough for Canon to have filled it, if they wanted to.

 

[Don Haines]

I've lost patience.... pre-ordered the Tokina 150-600...

I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.

I lost patience as well and bought the 300 2.8 IS II to go with my Mk III extenders. The IS and IQ rock, but this combo is so much bigger, heavier, and damn, where did all my money go?

how does the 300 f2.8 IS mark I compare to the mark II? The Tamron seems to beat the 300 f2.8 IS with 2x Mk III extender: http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1

The Series II is significantly better. See:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The crop on the trinity website is from the very centre, and I am willing to bet that the Tamron falls off rapidly away from the centre.

It does not matter if the sharpness falls off away from the center because we are all able to perfectly track birds in flight, so only the central portion of the image needs to be sharp

(If you look at the MTF curves, sharpness does fall off, but not as badly as I expected) One of the things I like most about the 400F5.6 is that the edges are WAY sharper than the 100-400.....

 

[kirispupis]

In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

I agree there's a gap, but it's been there long enough for Canon to have filled it, if they wanted to.

Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it.

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.

 

[photonius]

It does not matter if the sharpness falls off away from the center because we are all able to perfectly track birds in flight, so only the central portion of the image needs to be sharp

(If you look at the MTF curves, sharpness does fall off, but not as badly as I expected) One of the things I like most about the 400F5.6 is that the edges are WAY sharper than the 100-400.....

I suspect the artistic qualities of your award winning photograph of a bird's ass might just beat the record price of Rhein II.

 

[slclick]

That bird is really living on the edge

 

[mackguyver]

Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it.

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.

Sounds familiar - my path was 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS (+1.4x II), 400 f/5.6L, 300 f/2.8L IS II + 1.4xIII & 2xIII. I will say that the 400mm had me satisfied for many years.

 

[BeenThere]

In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

I agree there's a gap, but it's been there long enough for Canon to have filled it, if they wanted to.

Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up. I got this lens for air travel when the larger whites were just too large. When my 600/f4 died I did not replace it, just kept using the 500mm.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up.

That's not really correct. The EF 500mm f/4L IS was, "Developed as a successor to the EF500mm f/4.5L USM." (link)

The old EF 500/4.5 was derived from the FD/NewFD 500/4.5, there was a 400/4.5 and a 600/4.5 in that mount, too.

 

[BeenThere]

Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up.

That's not really correct. The EF 500mm f/4L IS was, "Developed as a successor to the EF500mm f/4.5L USM." (link)

The old EF 500/4.5 was derived from the FD/NewFD 500/4.5, there was a 400/4.5 and a 600/4.5 in that mount, too.

yes, but the 500/4 IS was larger, heavier, and more expensive. That is what I meant by the 500/4.5 being an intermediate tele in terms of size, weight and cost.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up.

That's not really correct. The EF 500mm f/4L IS was, "Developed as a successor to the EF500mm f/4.5L USM." (link)

The old EF 500/4.5 was derived from the FD/NewFD 500/4.5, there was a 400/4.5 and a 600/4.5 in that mount, too.

yes, but the 500/4 IS was larger, heavier, and more expensive. That is what I meant by the 500/4.5 being an intermediate tele in terms of size, weight and cost.

Makes sense, although I wouldn't call it intermediate in cost - the price relationships among its contemporary lenses 300/2.8L, 400/2.8L, 600/4L, all USM non-IS) were similar to that among the current MkII supertele lenses.

 

[Phil L]

I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I would be hoping the exact same thing.

 

[Loswr]

I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I would be hoping the exact same thing.

Why not hope for Canon to give it away for free, that is no less likely to happen than an 'affordable' 400/4 (unless you consider the 300/2.8L IS II to be affordable).

 

[slclick]

I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I would be hoping the exact same thing.

Why not hope for Canon to give it away for free, that is no less likely to happen than an 'affordable' 400/4 (unless you consider the 300/2.8L IS II to be affordable).

I consider the 1499.00 300 f/4 IS affordable and then the next pricing tier for super teles starts at 5k, so a price of 2k to 4k would be sweet. But who am I to tell Canon to market their goods?

And what would be a lens that would fall into that range? At the lower end, maybe a 400 5.6 IS. Or a 100-400 IS Mk2. And at the higher end ($4k) perhaps a 400 2.8 with no IS and a 200-400 f/4-5.6 with no extender.

 

[Loswr]

I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I would be hoping the exact same thing.

Why not hope for Canon to give it away for free, that is no less likely to happen than an 'affordable' 400/4 (unless you consider the 300/2.8L IS II to be affordable).

I consider the 1499.00 300 f/4 IS affordable and then the next pricing tier for super teles starts at 5k, so a price of 2k to 4k would be sweet. But who am I to tell Canon to market their goods?

And what would be a lens that would fall into that range? At the lower end, maybe a 400 5.6 IS. Or a 100-400 IS Mk2. And at the higher end ($4k) perhaps a 400 2.8 with no IS and a 200-400 f/4-5.6 with no extender.

400/4 is like 200/2, but a but more expensive. You won't see it for less than $5K in a prime, much less a zoom.

 

[adhocphotographer]

I would be more interested in a new 300L f/4 IS II! But any new affordable telephoto prime would be most welcome in my opinion!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it.

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.

Sounds familiar - my path was 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS (+1.4x II), 400 f/5.6L, 300 f/2.8L IS II + 1.4xIII & 2xIII. I will say that the 400mm had me satisfied for many years.

Lol....I passed on the 100-400 LIS, and went straight for a 400mm f5.6 L.
Then I took up a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x and 2x teles.
Then I sold the 400mm f5.6 L and picked up a 400mm f2.8 LIS.
Apart from the weight, I couldn't be happier!

 

[mackguyver]

Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it.

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.

Sounds familiar - my path was 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS (+1.4x II), 400 f/5.6L, 300 f/2.8L IS II + 1.4xIII & 2xIII. I will say that the 400mm had me satisfied for many years.

Lol....I passed on the 100-400 LIS, and went straight for a 400mm f5.6 L.
Then I took up a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x and 2x teles.
Then I sold the 400mm f5.6 L and picked up a 400mm f2.8 LIS.
Apart from the weight, I couldn't be happier!

Canon, the retailers, and eBay love us for sure!